European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© santiago silver / Fotolia

Attempts at influencing or distorting elections in the United States and other countries, including some European Union Member States, have drawn attention to what is commonly referred to as ‘fake news’, or false news posing as factual stories. Although the phenomenon of generating misleading news stories is at least as old as the printing press, the growth of social media has led to a very significant proliferation of this phenomenon. Some outlets use deceitful headlines and content to boost readership, in a search of higher advertising revenue. Other sources, often sponsored by certain state actors, are accused of spreading ‘fake news’ for entirely political ends.

In March 2018, the European Commission published the Final Report of the High Level Expert Group on Fake News and Online Disinformation, which proposes ways to combat the phenomenon. In April a Commission communication followed, entitled ‘Tackling online disinformation: a European Approach.’

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports published by international think tanks on ‘fake news’ and broader related issues.

Les manipulations de l’information, un défi pour nos démocraties
Centre d’analyse, de prévision et de stratégie, September 2018

News use across social media platforms 2018
Pew Research Center, September 2018

EU elections in the era of fake news
Friends of Europe, BEUC, August 2018

Bots in Brazil: The activity of social media bots in Brazilian elections
Wilson Center, August 2018

The legal framework to address “fake news”: Possible policy actions at the EU level
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2018

Trust, misinformation, and the declining use of social media for news: Digital News Report 2018
Reuters Institute for Journalism Studies, June 2018

Searching for a stronghold in the fight against disinformation
Centre for International Governance Innovation, June 2018

How Sweden is preparing for Russia to hack its election
Carnegie Europe, May 2018

Privatising censorship
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2018

Russia’s active measures architecture: Task and purpose
German Marshall Fund, May 2018

How Europe and Canada are fighting foreign political ads on social media
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

The Russian propaganda machine stutters along, blinkered
Wilson Center, May 2018

Russian social media influence: Understanding Russian propaganda in Eastern Europe
Rand Corporation, April 2018

The “European approach” to fighting disinformation: Lessons for the United States
German Marshall Fund, April 2018

It’s not just Facebook: Countering Russia’s social media offensive
German Marshall Fund, April 2018

How can social media companies stop the spread of fake news?
Royal united Services Institute, April 2018

Managing the risk of fake news
Hoover Institute, April 2018

Fighting fake news: Caught between a rock and a hard place
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2018

The science of fake news
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, March 2018

Ungoverned space: How surveillance capitalism and AI undermine democracy
Centre for International Governance Innovation, March 2018

Is social media replacing journalism?
Carnegie Europe, March 2018

Responsible reporting in an age of irresponsible information
German Marshall Fund, March 2018

The danger of truth decay across Europe
Rand Corporation, March 2018

The dark side of big data
Demos, March 2018

A beginner’s guide to battling fake news: Three approaches to consider before ‘sharing’
Atlantic Council, March 2018

Understanding the promise and limits of automated fact-checking
Reuters Institute for Journalism Studies, February 2018

Measuring the reach of “fake news” and online disinformation in Europe
Reuters Institute, February 2018

Could Europe’s New Data Protection Regulation curb online disinformation?
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2018

Fake news and what (not) to do about it
Clingendael, February 2018

Gummibäume, fake news und barbusige Proteste
Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, January 2017

Online information laundering: The role of social media
German Marshall Fund, January 2018

Social networks are creating a global crisis of democracy
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, March 2018

The diminishing role of facts in American public life
Rand Corporation, January 2018

Don’t let liberals end opinion diversity under cover of ‘fake news’ campaign
Heritage Foundation, January 2018

Bias, bullshit and lies: Audience perspectives on low trust in the media
Reuters Institute for Journalism Studies, December 2017

In social media broken?
Cato Institute, December 2017

The ‘combination’: An instrument in Russia’s information war in Catalonia
Fundacion Real Instituto Elcano, November 2017

Countering Russian information operations in the age of social media
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2017

The fake news toolkit
Demos, November 2017

To filter or not to filter: That is the question
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2017

Fakten checken reicht nicht
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, September 2017

The political slant of web portal news and the implications relating to the fake news phenomenon
Korea Development Institute, September 2017

Weeding out fake news: An approach to social media regulation
Wilfried Martens Centre, July 2017

Countering online radicalisation
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2017

Was tun gegen fake news?
Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, June 2017

Fake news is bad enough: But fake science is even more dangerous
Hoover Institute, June 2017

Russian election interference: Europe’s counter to fake news and cyber attacks
Carnegie Europe, May 2017

The cyber-enabled information struggle
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, May 2017

Political communications in the “fake news” Era: Six lessons for Europe
German Marshall Fund, February 2017

Can fake news be beaten?
Carnegie Europe, January 2017

Hacking, fake news, disinformation: Business as usual in the US-Russian relations or a deeper democratic challenge?
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, January 2017

How to avoid a post-truth world
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2017

Fake news und Social Bots im Bundestagswahlkampf
Hanns Seidel Stiftung, January 2017

What science tells us about how to combat fake news
Brookings Institution, January 2017

Reporting politics in ‘post-truth’ America
Brookings Institution, December 2016

Fake news is not a technology problem
American Enterprise Institute, December 2016

Read this briefing on ‘‘Fake news’‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ana Claudia Alfieri (1st edition),

© Jérôme Rommé / Fotolia

The common European value added tax (VAT) system was set up in 1967 and reformed to adapt it to the entry into force of the internal market in 1993. Therefore, the existing rules governing intra‑Community trade, which were intended to be transitory, are 25 years old. VAT is an important source of revenue for both national governments and the EU budget, but the current system is ill-adapted to the challenges of a modern economy. It presents such problems as vulnerability to fraud, high compliance costs for businesses, and a heavy administrative burden for national authorities.

As part of the action plan on VAT, the European Commission adopted a new proposal in May 2018. This proposal would amend the VAT Directive (Directive 2006/112/EC) to introduce the detailed technical measures of the definitive VAT system for the intra-EU business to business (B2B) trade of goods. It is part of the action plan on VAT and follows another proposal that sets out the basic features of the reform of the common EU VAT system. Some aspects of the previous proposal were taken out of the negotiations to be examined with this one.

Versions

• September 2018: ‘Detailed technical measures for the definitive VAT system‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the introduction of the detailed technical measures for the operation of the definitive VAT system for the taxation of trade between Member States Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2018) 329
25.5.2018 Rapporteur: Fulvio Martusciello (EPP, Italy) 2018/0164 (CNS) Shadow rapporteurs:

  Roberts Zīle (ECR, Latvia)
Thierry Cornillet (ALDE, France)
Molly Scott Cato (Greens/EFA, United Kingdom)
Barbara Kappel (ENF, Austria) Consultation procedure (CNS) – Parliament adopts a non-binding opinion Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Written by Didier Bourguignon,

© ChrisVanLennepPhoto / Fotolia

Global material use has tripled during the past four decades, in particular as a result of increasing living standards. The use of materials, which need to be extracted from our environment, can pose environmental challenges. It can also be threatened by resource scarcity and price volatility. This is particularly true for Europe, which is strongly dependent on imported materials.

There are a number of ways to consider material use in the European Union (EU). The breakdown of material use by types of materials indicates that non-metallic minerals, which include sand and gravel, account for almost half of the materials used in the EU. Material flows provide an overall picture of how materials enter, are used and finally leave the economy. Some of these materials stay in stocks, which are growing year after year. However, the efficiency of material use, measured through resource productivity, has increased substantially since 2000, in part as a result of the economic crisis.

Material use in the EU is steered by policies related to different areas such as energy, waste and industry. Relevant policy documents include the 2011 roadmap to a resource-efficient Europe, the 2013 seventh Environment Action Programme and the 2015 circular economy action plan.

The EU supports these policies with funding. Funding channels include the Horizon 2020 framework programme for research and innovation, which allocated about €635 million between 2014 and 2020 for research on raw-material-related challenges. The European structural and investment funds also support developing more efficient material use practices.

The European Parliament has advocated making the use of harmonised indicators for resource efficiency legally binding in the Member States and setting targets for increasing resource efficiency. Parliament has also supported broadening the scope of eco-design requirements to gradually include all relevant resource-efficiency features in product-design requirements.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Material use in the European Union: Towards a circular approach‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Martin Russell and Ionel Zamfir,

© Lisa F. Young / Fotolia

Digital technology brings greater efficiency in many walks of life, and elections are no exception. Online databases hugely facilitate the task of creating and managing accurate and up-to-date electoral rolls. In less developed countries, whose citizens often lack reliable identity documents, biometric technology can help to identify voters, thus preventing fraud in the form of multiple voting.

However, for some aspects of election management, digitalisation is more controversial. Electronic voting machines count votes quickly and accurately. First used in the United States, they have spread to several Latin American and Asian countries. However, the intangible nature of digital processes makes detecting tampering more difficult; as a result, most European countries are sticking to tried-and-trusted conventional paper ballots.

Even more controversial is the idea of internet voting. On the one hand, allowing citizens the convenience of casting their vote online without the need to visit polling stations could help to reverse a worrying decline in voter turnout across the world. On the other hand, current technology does not allow internet voting systems to be fully secured against hackers, a major concern given the growing sophistication of cyber-attacks (for example, from Russia). To date, only Estonia gives all voters the option of online voting in national elections.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Digital technology in elections‘.

Countries that use electronic voting

Countries that use internet voting

Written by Tarja Laaninen (1st edition),

© krisana / Fotolia

On 1 February 2018, the European Commission published a proposal for a recast of the Directive on the quality of water intended for human consumption (the Drinking Water Directive). The proposal responds to the European Citizens’ Initiative, Right2Water, and builds on a fitness check which concluded that the 20-year old directive is fit for purpose, but needs updating. The main elements of the proposal consist of updating the water quality standards, introducing a risk-based approach to the monitoring of water, improving and streamlining the information provided to consumers, harmonising the standards for products in contact with drinking water, and imposing obligations to improve access to water. In the European Parliament, the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) considered the draft report on 7 June 2018; the vote in committee is planned for 10 September 2018.

Versions

• September 2018: Revision of the Drinking Water Directive (1st edition)

 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast) Committee responsible:

Rapporteur:

Shadow rapporteurs:

 

 

 

 

 

  Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI)

Michel Dantin (EPP, France)

Rory Palmer (S&D, United Kingdom)

Jørn Dohrmann (ECR, Denmark)

Ulrike Müller (ALDE, Germany)

Lynn Boylan (GUE/NGL, Ireland)

Benedek Jávor (Greens/EFA, Hungary)

Eleonora Evi (EFDD, Italy)

Sylvie Goddyn (ENF, France) COM(2017) 0753 of 1.2.2018

2017/0332(COD)

 

Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in ENVI committee on draft report

 

 

 

Written by Patrick Kelly (1st edition),

© Goodpics / Fotolia

The food supply chain ensures that food and drink products are delivered to the public. It affects all consumers in the EU. The final price paid by the consumer is impacted by the number of participants in the food supply chain. While the single market has brought benefits to operators in the supply chain through more market opportunities and a larger customer base, it has also brought challenges. Structural changes have occurred, leading to different levels of bargaining power and imbalances between actors in the chain. The abuse of such differences may lead to unfair trading practices.

To strengthen the position of smaller operators (farmers) in the food supply chain, in April 2018 the European Commission presented a proposal for a directive on unfair trading practices. In the European Parliament, a report is due to be voted on in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in October, while in the Council of the EU a revised presidency text is being examined.

Versions

• September 2018: Unfair trading practices in the food supply chain (1st edition)

 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the food supply chain. Committee responsible:

Rapporteur:

Shadow rapporteurs: 

 

 

 

 

 

  Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI)

Paolo de Castro (S&D, Italy)

Mairead McGuinness (EPP, Ireland),

Anthea McIntyre (ECR, UK),

Elsi Katainen (ALDE, Finland),

Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL, Ireland),

Maria Heubuch (Greens/EFA, Germany),

Marco Zullo (EFDD, Italy),

Jacques Colombier, (ENF, France). COM(2018) 173 from 12.4.2018.

2018/0082(COD)

Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in committee

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

©European Union

The President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, will deliver his last State of the Union address to the European Parliament on Wednesday 12 September, a little more than eight months before the next European elections. In this annual speech in Strasbourg, President Juncker is expected to take stock of the state of play on his ten priorities for the 2014-2019 political cycle and present his remaining initiatives on building a ‘more united, stronger and more democratic Union’. Juncker’s 2017 address was marked by cautious optimism: since then, whilst the European economy has continued to recover, several other challenges have proved persistent.

This note offers a selection of links to commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on the state of the EU and possible reforms. Brexit-related publications can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are thinking’ from July 2018. Papers on migration are available in an earlier edition in this series, published in June. Those on euro-zone reform appear in a previous publication in June.

The EU needs to rethink its approach to liberal order
Carnegie Europe, August 2018

Does Europe have an alternative to populism?
Carnegie Europe, August 2018

La Cour de Justice de l’UE et la Pologne: Premiers frémissements
Institut Jacques Delors, August 2018

Flexibility is not the miracle solution
Carnegie Europe, August 2018

Competing visions of Europe are threatening to tear the Union apart
Chatham House, August 2018

The nightmare of the dark: The security fears that keep European awake at night
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

PESCO: Un pas vers l’autonomie stratégique
Confrontations Europe, July 2018

In the face of the European Union’s political crisis: The vital cultural struggle over values
Fondation Robert Schuman, July 2018

Europe’s surprising economic success story
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2018

European young leaders
Friends of Europe, July 2018

EU income inequality decline: Views from an income shares perspective
Bruegel, July 2018

Au gré des ‘vents mauvais’
Institut Jacques Delors, July 2018

L’urgence d’une réforme de la fiscalité en Europe
Confrontations Europe, July 2018

In Europe, the split between open and closed has not replaced traditional politics
Chatham House, June 2018

Mieux vaudrait laisser les gouvernements libres de tenter les politiques de leur choix
Bruegel, June 2018

Système à plusieurs niveaux de l’UE : Renforcer les voix parlementaires
Institut Jacques Delors, June 2018

Is Europe’s problem illiberal majoritarianism or creeping authoritarianism?
Carnegie Europe, June 2018 

Merkel et la réforme de l’UE: Décryptage
Institut Jacques Delors, June 2018

EU Budget: Why the new budget plan should urgently provide European added value
Bertelsmann Stiftung, May 2018

Between Rome and Sibiu: A trajectory for the new European narrative
Egmont, May 2018

A new direction for the EU: Comparing its deficits to concrete progressive proposals
Foundation for European Progressive Studies, April 2018

Can Europe save the world order?
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

Separation anxiety: European influence at the UN after Brexit
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

What European “power”?
Fondation Robert Schuman, May 2018

Emmanuel Macron, France and Europe “France is back in Europe”: on which terms?
Fondation Robert Schuman, May 2018

Europe needs a broader discussion of its future
Bruegel, May 2018 

Populism report
Policy Solutions, Foundation for European Progressive Studies, May 2018 

Europe’s populist challenge: Origins, supporters, and responses
Center for American Progress, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, May 2018 

The EU must realize that populism is a symptom of real policy failure
Chatham House, May 2018 

The other democratic deficit
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, April 2018

The EU remains unprepared for the next migration crisis
Carnegie Europe, April 2018

Un moment européen
Fondation Robert Schuman, April 2018

The future of the United States and Europe: An irreplaceable partnership
Chatham House, April 2018

The cost of non-Europe, revisited
Centre d’études prospectives et d’informations internationales, April 2018

Models of integration in Europe
Fondation Robert Schuman, April 2018

Involving millennials in politics
Foundation for European Progressive Studies, April 2018

Reprendre le contrôle de la mondialisation: L’intégration européenne comme instrument de souveraineté
Fondation Robert Schuman, April 2018

The rocky road ahead for the Franco-German reform drive
Open Europe, April 2018

The middle class in focus: Priorities for the 2019 elections and beyond
Wilfried Martens Centre, March 2018

EU member states and Russia: National and European debates in an evolving international environment
Finnish Institute of International Relations, March 2018

L’Europe face au défi de l’identité: qui sommes ‘nous’?
Fondation Robert Schuman, March 2018

More initiative for Europe’s citizens
Bertelsmann Stiftung, March 2018

For a regional solidarity policy after 2020
Institut Jacques Delors, March 2018

Is there an escape from ‘Ever Closer Union’?
Egmont, February 2018

Crisis and cohesion in the EU: A ten-year review
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2018

How to govern Europe better: Reflections on reform of the European Parliament, Commission and Council
European Policy Centre, February 2018

Reforming the European Parliament
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, February 2018

Reforming the European Union: A political and democratic imperative
Fondation Robert Schuman, February 2018

The brown chameleon: Europe’s populism crisis and the re-emergence of the far right
Observer Research Foundation, February 2018 

Europe is back: Economic, financial, social and technological trends in a changing world
European Political Strategy Centre, January 2018 

A more democratic European Union: Propositions and scope for political action
Institut Jacques Delors, January 2018 

Globalization and European integration: Threat or opportunity? Perception, knowledge and policy preferences of European citizens
Bertelsmann Stiftung, January 2018

Inequality in Europe
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, January 2018

 

Download the PDF version of this briefing on ‘The State of the Union‘.

Written by Didier Bourguignon (1st edition),

© allexxandarx / Fotolia

Although freshwater is relatively abundant in the European Union (EU), water stress occurs in many areas, particularly in the Mediterranean region and parts of the Atlantic region, with environmental and economic impacts.

In May 2018, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a regulation setting EU-wide standards that reclaimed water would need to meet in order to be used for agricultural irrigation, with the aim of encouraging greater use of reclaimed water and contributing to alleviating water scarcity. The Commission estimates that the proposal could increase water reuse in agricultural irrigation from 1.7 billion m³ to 6.6 billion m³ per year, thereby reducing water stress by 5 %.

In the European Parliament, the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) is considering the proposal. The Environment Council discussed the proposal on 25 June 2018.

Versions

• September 2019: Water reuse: Setting minimum requirements (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum requirements for water reuse Committee responsible:

Rapporteur:

Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI)

Simona Bonafè (S&D, Italy)

Francesc Gambús (EPP, Spain)

Jan Huitema (ALDE, the Netherlands)

Lynn Boylan (GUE/NGL, Ireland)

  COM(2018) 337 from 28.5.2018

2018/0169(COD)

 

Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Water use by sector in the EU (2014, hm3)

 

Written by Etienne Bassot and Wolfgang Hiller,

© European Union, 2018; EP – Daina Le Lardic

As the current European Commission enters the final stage of its mandate and with less than nine months to go until the European Parliament elections in May 2019, the immediate period ahead will be crucial for Jean-Claude Juncker and his fellow Commissioners in delivering on the promises and commitments for his five-year term.

What is the state of play of the various legislative and other initiatives announced by the Commission since taking office in 2014? How many of the commitments made have led to formal proposals so far? And how many of those proposals – whether in the form of legislation, other major political initiatives, or international agreements – have been brought to fruition, demonstrating that the EU institutions have collectively ‘delivered’?

This paper takes stock of what the Commission has done – or not done – both with regard to its own commitments and in response to explicit requests for action made by the European Parliament, with both a statistical breakdown and a qualitative evaluation. It forms part of the on-going series of evaluations being issued throughout the 2014-2019 Commission’s period in office.

Our analysis suggests that overall, almost four years after taking office, the Commission has tabled 89 per cent of proposals foreseen (482 out of 543). These have to be discussed by the European Parliament and Council, and negotiations are needed to reach their final adoption and publication, a democratic process which takes time. So far, 40 per cent of Commission proposals have been adopted by the co-legislators (216 out of 543), and another 34 per cent are proceeding well (183 out of 543). Progress varies from one policy field to another. With regard to the tabling of proposals, the rate is high in areas such as international trade, justice and fundamental rights, and the union of democratic change (98, 93 and 100 per cent respectively). However, in the areas of jobs, growth and investment, almost a quarter of the proposals expected (23 per cent) have still not been submitted. As for adoption of proposals by the co-legislators, in some priority areas, such as the digital single market, and justice and fundamental rights, almost half of the proposals submitted have been adopted (46 and 42 per cent respectively); in others, such as jobs, growth and investment, progress is slower (28 per cent). Overall, evidence nevertheless suggests that, step by step, the European institutions are collectively enacting the ‘Juncker plan’, but that work still remains to be done. European institutions are aware that, with less than nine months to go until the next parliamentary elections, they need to show that Europe can deliver for its citizens when and where it matters.

This paper seeks to provide an independent, objective and authoritative tool for Members of the European Parliament and those interested more widely to assess the performance to date of the current Commission. It is both exhaustive – in covering all the ten priority areas that the Commission set itself – and selective – as it focuses, for each priority, on the main initiatives and their latest developments. It aims to be both quantitative and qualitative: for each of the ten priorities, it offers a quantitative snapshot of the various initiatives at the key stages of their adoption, complemented by a qualitative assessment of the situation. These graphs are regularly updated on the ‘Legislative Train Schedule‘ which features on the European Parliament’s website.

In this edition, Section 3 introduces a special feature on the next multiannual budget plan, which it is hoped can be adopted during the course of this parliamentary term.

Read the full study on ‘The Juncker Commission’s ten priorities: State of play in autumn 2018‘.

The Juncker Commission’s ten priorities: Legislative delivery to date (01 August 2018)

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for victims of organ trafficking.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

How would you feel about being forced into donating an organ, such as a kidney or lung, your liver, heart, or pancreas? Did you know that every day somewhere in the world, a person is lured into the illicit organ trade? The World Health Organization estimates that about 10 000 organs are sold on the black market each year, some of which come from trafficked persons.

As a criminal activity, no exact data exists as to how many people are trafficked for the removal of their organs in the EU. However, it is estimated that between 2013 and 2014, 12 % of trafficked persons in the EU were exploited for purposes that include, among others, organ removal.

© Photographee.eu / Fotolia

Victims of human trafficking are at the centre of EU anti-trafficking policy. In 2011, the EU adopted a law on preventing and combating trafficking in persons and protecting its victims, which covers trafficking for the purpose of organ removal. It obliges EU countries to provide help, support and protect victims.

Between 2012 and 2015, the EU financed a project to raise awareness about trafficking in human beings for the purpose of organ removal and to improve enforcement of this crime.

Victims of trafficking and their counsel can find information about their rights in the EU which range from (emergency) assistance and healthcare to labour rights, access to justice and a lawyer, and compensation, available in all EU official languages.

Further information

• Guardian article on the WHO report on organ trafficking, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/27/kidney-trade-illegal-operations-who
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs website, https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/eu_anti-trafficking_action_2012-2016_at_a_glance.pdf
• European parliament study on trafficking in human organs, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/549055/EXPO_STU%282015%29549055_EN.pdf
• UNODC assessment toolkit on Trafficking in Persons for the Purpose of Organ Removal https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/2015/UNODC_Assessment_Toolkit_TIP_for_the_Purpose_of_Organ_Removal.pdf

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for aid workers.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

EU development policy seeks to foster the sustainable development of developing countries, with the primary aim of eradicating poverty. Providing over 50 % of all global development aid, the EU and its member countries are collectively the world’s leading donor. For example, development assistance provided by the EU and its members totalled €75.5 billion in 2016.

© Joseph Sohm / Fotolia

If you work or volunteer for an NGO (non-governmental organisation) in the field of development you and your organisation may be benefiting from a number of EU programmes and measures.

For instance, NGOs can get funding via grants and contracts under various humanitarian aid and assistance programmes and initiatives. Grants are direct financial contributions to organisations, or to projects carried out by them. Contracts are meanwhile awarded for the purchase of services, supplies or works.

The European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department (ECHO) provides funding for NGOs, international organisations and United Nations agencies carrying out humanitarian work on the ground in many countries around the world. In addition, the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI), regularly publishes open calls for tender.

The EU Aid Volunteers programme offers people from all over the EU opportunities to become EU aid volunteers in humanitarian projects worldwide. NGOs can also use Erasmus+ to attract young people from around the EU who might be interested in taking part in volunteering projects.

Further information

• EPRS Guide to EU Funding 2014-2020. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/Funding_Guide.pdf
• European Commission’s Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/general_en
• EU Aid Volunteers programme, http://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/humanitarian-aid/eu-aid-volunteers_en

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for fashion shoppers.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Do you love shopping for clothes? Even if you are a dedicated follower of fashion, you may not be aware of the impact that EU laws have on the fashion items you buy. The textile and clothing sector plays an important role in European manufacturing, and EU laws ensure the quality standards of products sold on the European market. EU law means that something labelled as pure silk is not a cheap copy, and puts rules place on footwear manufacture, helping to protect your interests as a consumer and making sure the goods you buy aren’t fakes.

© CHEN, PAO-CHIN / Fotolia

EU standards ensure that children’s clothes are safe with regards to cords and drawstrings. The EU is also concerned that fashion goods are produced fairly, and is looking to reduce the impact of fashion on the environment (e.g. reducing textile waste)

The EU also works on various initiatives to strengthen European fashion industry competitiveness, such as measures to protect intellectual property rights that mean that European designers get paid for their work. It also helps small and medium-sized fashion enterprises to access finance, and helps stimulate creativity and innovation. Through its trade agreements, the EU also gives fashion designers and textile companies the opportunity to export to the world.

Further information

• EPRS briefing on Workers’ conditions in the textile and clothing sector: just an Asian affair? Issues at stake after the Rana Plaza tragedy, 2014,
  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2014/538222/EPRS_BRI(2014)538222_REV1_EN.pdf
• EPRS briefing on Benefits of EU international trade agreements, European Added Value in Action, 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2017)603269

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for home owners.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

As a citizen of the European Union, you have the right not only to live, work, study and do business anywhere in the EU, but also to buy property. Two-thirds of Europeans own their own home; some of them are still paying back a loan or mortgage, while others own their home entirely. Those who have finished paying their mortgage spend less on housing, so it is quite understandable to want to buy your own home, not only to live in but also as a means of saving money.

© klublu / Fotolia

The two main difficulties you will face when buying a house in another EU country concern understanding the legal environment for residential property and financing the purchase. The EU is working to make it easier and safer for you to do both by funding initiatives such as CROBECO and IMOLA, which aim to increase transparency around and information about the real estate market and to harmonise land registries. In addition, the Mortgage Credit Directive is helping to open up the mortgage market in the EU.

Once you own your home, you will need to pay property taxes. In the absence of EU-wide tax rules, you will need to make sure with the authorities of both the country where you are tax-resident and the country where you are buying a property which laws apply and what taxes you need to pay, and where. Fortunately, most countries have signed bilateral agreements destined to avoid double taxation, so you will only have to pay the tax once.

Further information

• European Parliament, study ‘Cross Border Acquisitions of Residential Property in the EU: Problems Encountered by Citizens’, 2016, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/556936/IPOL_STU(2016)556936_EN.pdf
• Housing statistics, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Housing_statistics

Written by Alina Dobreva,

© European Union 2017 – Source : EP

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s State of the Union address to the European Parliament, and the subsequent debate, on 12 September 2018 is to be the last one during the current mandate. It comes in the context of the ongoing reflection on the future path of the European Union, especially in view of the European elections next May. The debate will therefore be an occasion to reflect on the legacy and achievements of this Commission, to present the priorities until the end of the mandate and to follow up on the ongoing debate on the future path of the European Union of 27.

President Juncker’s speech is expected to be accompanied by a set of concrete initiatives and proposals with the aim to deliver positive results for citizens by the time of the Sibiu summit in May 2019. This year’s speech comes as the campaigns for the European elections start to take shape, but also in the period of intensive debate on the Commission’s proposals for the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which set out the Commission’s vision of the EU financing of policies during that period.

The State of the Union debate now forms part of the process for the adoption of the annual Commission Work Programme and thus plays an important role in identifying major political priorities to be agreed in interinstitutional dialogue.

This briefing is an update of an earlier one, of September 2017, by Eva-Maria Poptcheva.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The 2018 State of the Union debate in the European Parliament‘.

Written by Giulio Sabbati and Gianluca Sgueo,

This Infographic contains up-to-date information on key data concerning the forthcoming European elections (to be held in 2019). In a one-page format, readers can find information of the Election day, the voting systems adopted at Member States’ level, as well as on rules governing eligibility and allocation of seats. Most importantly, the infographic takes into account the re-distribution of seats following on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, and the overall reduction of total number of seats to 705. Further, more in-depth analysis is available on the second page of the infographic.

Read this infographic on ‘2019 European elections: National rules‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

As the long, hot summer draws to a close, Members of the European Parliament are packing their bags once more to travel to Strasbourg for the September plenary session. The agenda for this first ‘back-to-school’ session features the final State of the Union address of the current mandate by the President of the Commission, Jean‑Claude Juncker, on Wednesday morning. Other highlights include the latest in the series of debates on the Future of Europe, with the Prime Minister of Greece, Alexis Tsipras, scheduled for Tuesday morning, followed by an address by Michel Aoun, President of the Lebanese Republic, in a formal sitting on Tuesday lunchtime. Zoran Zaev, Prime Minister of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will also address the plenary on Thursday morning, in advance of a referendum linked to the agreement with Greece on the country’s name, set for the end of this month.

Parliament will discuss on Monday evening an agreement to enlarge the structural reform support programme in both scope and funding. The Commission has proposed to expand the scope and financing of the programme, where demand has far outstripped capacity, to cover future euro membership preparations. Parliament has proposed that requests are prioritised, and stressed that other cohesion policy priorities should not be impacted.

Few people can have missed the tragic images of wildlife struggling to survive in our plastic-littered environment. Around 2 % to 5 % of plastics produced end up in oceans, damaging coastal and marine ecosystems. While plastic is a cheap, durable and convenient material, poor treatment of plastic waste impacts on nature, the climate and human health. Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health & Food Safety has urged the Commission to increase recycling of plastics and curtail the use of single-use plastics by 2020, and following a joint debate on the EU strategy for plastics in a circular economy on Wednesday evening, Parliament is due to vote on a resolution on the Commission’s proposals.

The controversy over whether or not glyphosate is a safe pesticide has raged for three years. On Thursday morning, Parliament will vote on a report on the implementation of the Plant Protection Products Regulation that expresses concerns regarding misuse of emergency authorisations allowing individual countries to apply derogations. Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health & Food Safety would like to see greater action on innovative pest management, as well as more transparency within the approval process to ensure that pesticides employed in the EU are low-risk for humans and the environment.

The modern digital environment has changed the way copyright-protected works and content are created, produced, distributed and used in the EU and beyond, rendering current legislation inadequate to deal with the issues thrown up by widespread use of the internet. On Tuesday afternoon, Members will propose amendments and debate the Commission’s proposal to tackle exceptions to copyright protection in the digital single market for research and education (text and data mining), press publishers’ rights, and the ‘value gap’ created by online sharing. This follows the rejection in plenary in July of the Legal Affairs Committee’s agreed mandate to negotiate with the Council on the proposal.

Digitalisation should also make it easier for citizens to obtain information or carry out an administrative procedure throughout the EU. The Commission has accordingly made a proposal for a single digital gateway. Should the proposal be approved, Member States will have to provide their most frequently used procedures online, in at least two languages. Parliament’s Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection has already succeeded in modifying the proposals to ensure the facility is clear, simple, and provides adequate data protection and access for the disabled. Parliament will discuss a compromise text agreed with the Council, on Wednesday evening. Data protection rules apply to the EU’s own bodies, offices and agencies too, and Parliament will debate a compromise text on the protection of personal data processed by the Union institutions and bodies on Wednesday afternoon. Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice & Home Affairs Committee is keen to see a harmonised regime that also covers the sort of sensitive operational data processed during judicial and police cooperation.

Looking further afield, an own-initiative report on the state of EU-US relations is scheduled for discussion on Tuesday evening, where President Trump’s willingness to withdraw the US from a number of international agreements on trade and security has raised considerable concern. Despite recent divergences, however, Parliament and the US Congress remain committed to working together. Other external relations items on the agenda on Tuesday evening include the state of EU-China relations and a statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the emergency situation in Libya and the Mediterranean.

Parliament will debate on Monday evening an initiative announced in the 2016 edition of President Juncker’s State of the Union speech to create a European Solidarity Corps. Parliament has been keen to ensure that this new opportunity for young people to volunteer in education, health, environmental protection, disaster prevention, and the reception and integration of migrants and asylum-seekers, is funded by fresh money, rather than reallocations. Parliament’s negotiators have been largely successful in ensuring that the aim of the Corps is to provide meaningful, non-profit opportunities that help the vulnerable while also improving young people’s job prospects.

Finally, on Tuesday evening, Parliament is due to debate an agreed text on controls on cash entering or leaving the EU, which are intended to close the gaps in existing laws that could be exploited for the purposes of money laundering or financing terrorism, specifically by tightening up definitions of ‘cash’.

 

A list of all material prepared for this Plenary Session: European Solidarity Corps (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Protection of personal data processed by the Union institutions and bodies (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Single Digital Gateway (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Structural Reform Support Programme: financial envelope and general objective (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Controls on cash entering or leaving the Union (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Plastics in a circular economy (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Implementation of pesticides legislation (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Copyright in the digital single market (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Countering money laundering with criminal law (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) State of EU-US relations (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL) Amending Budget No 4 to the 2018 EU budget: Mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (available in DE – EN- ES – FR – IT – PL)

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

© TK 1980 / Shutterstock.com.

Exploring the relationship between ethics and technological innovation has always been a challenging task for policy-makers. Ethical considerations concerning the impact of research and innovation (R&I) are increasingly important owing to the quickening pace of technological innovation and the transformative potential and complexity of contemporary advances in science and technology. The multiplication of legal references to ethical principles and the mushrooming of ad hoc ethics committees indicate the institutional embedding of ethics into the scientific research process as such, but also into an increasing array of technological trajectories. Yet the rapid development of disruptive technologies means that social and ethical norms often struggle to keep up with technological development. But what if disruptive technologies were to challenge traditional ethical norms and structures?

In a traditional technological setting, ethics is mostly seen as a constraining procedural requirement of a legal nature that needs to be met at the outset of the scientific research endeavour. This is frequently the case in technological domains where human participation, clinical trials or animal experimentation are planned. Obtaining prior ethics approval remains a primary challenge for scientists and technology developers. However, as ethical requirements become stricter and new technology-related ethical challenges arise, concepts such as ‘ethics by design’ and ‘responsible innovation’ are gradually being mainstreamed in several policy contexts such as nanonotechnologies, gene editing and emerging information technologies. In these domains, ethics has gradually become part of the design process, building on methodologies, such as the value sensitive design approach, ethically aligned design, the recently adopted blockchain ethical design framework or even the ongoing work on the 7000 – model process for addressing ethical concerns during system design, that provide a way to ensure that social and moral values and ethical principles are protected, and human values accounted for in a comprehensive manner.

Can technology challenge established ethical norms and structures?

Most ethicists, regulators and policy-makers tend to treat moral beliefs as independent variables, as if these were immune to technological influences, exhibiting either moral futurism or moral presentism and neglecting the interaction or even co-production of technology and ethical norms. Besides being a long-lasting object of ethical action, new technologies, which are inducing profound social and cultural changes, have started affecting the relative importance of various moral principles, human values and normative orientations. Their advancement may also reshape our assumptions and practices in relation to ethics, and may alter social norms around what is ‘acceptable’, ‘normal’ and ‘ethical’. New and emerging technologies, such as genome testing and profiling technologies, strain our traditional moral theories and may blur the lines of what ‘ethical’ means by influencing, for example, the distribution of social roles and responsibilities, moral norms and values, or identities.

Scientific notions and technological concepts such as gene editing and autonomous machines are penetrating existing ethical categories, and triggering the reconsideration of traditional ethical norms, such as autonomy and human responsibility. Wearable cameras pose challenges to traditional ethical guidelines around informed consent, anonymity and confidentiality, data protection and privacy, mostly because of the growing accessibility of personal information. Robotic technologies also affect the central categories of ethics: our concepts of agency and responsibility, and our value frameworks. Some scholars have even argued that ‘people’s moral judgements depend on the digital context in which a dilemma is presented’ and that, when faced with high-conflict moral dilemmas, people are more likely to opt for a utilitarian solution if they are responding on a smartphone rather than on a personal computer. Big data transforms traditional concepts of ethical research, and moves ethical analysis to less concrete notions, such as data discrimination and privacy-conscious engineering. With their ever-increasing power, breadth and multi-functional integration, emerging technologies are becoming increasingly intrusive, interfere with private life and also question the authority of institutional ethics-governance procedures to cope with technological novelties that invalidate traditional ethics-governance instruments.

What do the disruptive effects of technology upon ethics mean for European policy-making?

Achieving compliance with ethical standards has become a legal requirement in many areas of EU law including the rules for the commercial authorisation of medicinal and biotechnology products, the essential requirements for receiving EU research funds and the processing of personal data. At the EU level, all ex-ante ethical assessments of technological and scientific proposals are performed on the basis of ethics checklists that refer to a variety of ethical values, rights and principles. Such ethics checklists and compliance requirements, which are part of the legal framework for the evaluation and selection of EU-funded research proposals, are becoming increasingly incomplete as they do not recognise the dynamic character of morality and its interaction with technology. The same applies to the opinions of expert groups on ethics that often remain external to the dynamic and disruptive nature of technological development. In order to connect the ethics of technology more closely with the day-to-day work of R&I practitioners as well as with rapid technological advancements, reflexive procedures without an a priori, fixed ranking of principles are needed for the resolution of contextual value conflicts.

The recently adopted European Parliament resolution on civil law rules on robotics – comprising a ‘code of ethical conduct for robotics engineers’, a ‘code for research ethics committees’, a ‘licence for designers’, and a ‘licence for users’ – is a step in the right direction, as it introduces a detailed process-based architecture for technology ethics in a rapidly evolving technological domain. The charter on robotics contained in the resolution combines an ex-ante ethics-by-design approach with a reflexive framing and a meta-ethical analysis of the governance process employed for the embedding of ethics into the structures for the development of this disruptive technology. This legislative initiative resolution should be part of a wider paradigm shift that could include the introduction of new ethical principles (such as the right not to be measured, related to possible misuses of artificial intelligence and the internet of things, and the right to meaningful human contact, relating to possible misuses of care robots). It could also trigger the development of novel models of ethical assessment that will enrich evaluation procedures and initiate public debates on the need to depart from the prevailing ‘ethics as a constraint’ approach. Such a paradigm shift may need to introduce procedural steps that would allow technology design choices and socio-technical trajectories to be deliberated upon from an ethical viewpoint, as an essential part of the wider technology assessment and policy-framing practice.

All these considerations could constitute elements of a new EU-wide social contract on responsible innovation that might possibly place ethics by design at the epicentre of the technology development cycle. Such a contract could render anticipatory technology ethics tools fully operational and bring forward the role and limitations of ethical expertise as a source of epistemic authority that claims to represent the entirety of societal concerns. At the same time, the introduction of research integrity legal standards, ethical impact assessments, ethics audits or follow-ups and harmonised accreditation procedures for research ethics committees may need to be considered as an immediate response to the ambiguity of claims, and the challenges associated with value pluralism and moral uncertainty concerning emerging technologies.

Further reading

• What if technologies challenged our ethical norms?

• What if technologies had their own ethical standards?

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Savvapanf Photo / Fotolia

US President Donald Trump has pushed ahead in recent months with his controversial policies on trade and defence, which critics say could undermine the global rules-based order and create new uncertainties. The European Union’s trade spat with the US eased somewhat following a meeting of European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker with Trump in July. However, the NATO summit earlier that month and Trump’s subsequent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin did little to reassure the EU about the stability of transatlantic relations.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports published by international think tanks on President Trump’s policy moves, focusing on relations with Europe, Russia, China and trade. It does not cover reports on Iran, North Korea and the US domestic situation, which will be topics of future issues of What think tanks are thinking.

US-EU

The Trump-Juncker meeting in DC raises urgent questions for the next Commission
Centre for European Policy Studies, August 2018

Can lowering trade barriers fuel American energy exports to Europe?
Atlantic Council, August 2018

Germany’s current account surplus: A transatlantic view on the debate
Bertelsmann Stiftung, August 2018

The EU needs to rethink its approach to liberal order
Carnegie Europe, August 2018

An Eastern European view on great power politics
Egmont, August 2018

Was the Trump-Juncker meeting really a success?
Atlantic Council, July 2018

Europe’s trade victory in Washington
Peterson Institute of International Economics, July 2018

Trading Places: How the EU-China Summit underlined US isolationism in trade under Trump
Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

It’s time for the United States and Europe to face the politics of cultural displacement
Brookings Institution, July 2018

Yes, he can: Trump provokes a trade war. A clever EU will refrain from further tariffs but hold firm on WTO rules
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, July 2018

Is Europe America’s friend or foe?
Bruegel, July 2018

Trump’s vindictive return to Europe
International Institute for Strategic Studies, August 2018

Trump provides China an opening in Europe
Carnegie Europe, July 2018

If the EU is Trump’s Foe, the EU should address Trumpism within Europe
Egmont, July 2017

L’Europe: Sujet ou objet de la géopolitique des données ?
Institut français des relations internationales, July 2018

A plea for European Atlanticism
Friends of Europe, July 2018

The EU and multilateralism in an age of great powers
Egmont, July 2018

US-Russia and security

Enlarge NATO to ensure peace in Europe
Atlantic Council, August 2018

The myth of Trump’s ‘soft’ Russia policy
Cato Institute, August 2018

The Helsinki Summit and great power competition
Brookings Institution, August 2018

What’s Vladimir Putin’s next play?
Heritage Foundation, August 2018

Walking a fine line on Russian sanctions
Rand Corporation, August 2018

Unpacked: What Trump gets right and wrong about defense burden sharing
Brookings Institution, August 2018

If Trump wants to show he’s tough on Russia, here’s what he should do next
Atlantic Council, July 2018

Trump’s biggest gift to Putin
Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

At Helsinki Summit, Trump and Putin become partners in destruction
Chatham House, July 2018

The Trump-Putin Summit: The emphasis is the dialogue, not the outcome
National Institute for Security Studies, July 2018 

Trump’s meaningless NATO spending debate
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

Why Europe is very nervous about a Trump-Putin summit
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018 

Trump’s performance in Helsinki shouldn’t have come as a surprise
German Marshall Fund, July 2018

What did the 2018 NATO Summit accomplish with respect to cyber issues?
Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

Ukraine’s Helsinki hangover
German Marshall Fund, July 2018 

The watershed that wasn’t in Helsinki
Brookings Institution, July 2018

US-Russia relations and a second Trump-Putin summit
Brookings Institution, July 2018

The United States and Russia aren’t allies. But Trump and Putin are
Brookings Institution, July 2018 

Trump and Putin go home
Carnegie Europe, July 2018 

The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy
Real Instituto Elcano, July 2018

Trump’s attitude toward NATO makes Putin’s job easier
Carnegie Europe, July 2018

Trump’s NATO
Carnegie Europe, July 2018 

Western unity is best for Russian summitry
Rand Corporation, July 2018 

US-China

How the United States should confront China without threatening the global trading system
Peterson Institute of International Economics, August 2018 

US-China trade war: What’s in it for Europe?
Bruegel, August 2018

The worst scenario for an emerging trade war with China
Heritage Foundation, August 2018

America under Trump lacks the commitment to compete with China in Asia to defend the global order
International Institute for Strategic Studies, August 2018 

US-China Competition: Trade wars for technological supremacy
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, August 2018 

The US-China trade war: Different messages
Rand Corporation, July 2018 

US tariffs and China’s holding of Treasuries
Bruegel, July 2018

Trade deal with Mexico

Trump’s new trade agreement: What’s in it?
Atlantic Council, August 2018

A reported NAFTA auto deal would backfire against consumers and auto makers alike
Peterson Institute of International Economics, August 2018

Trump’s deal with Mexico: A new NAFTA?
Council on Foreign Relations, August 2018

U.S.-Mexico trade deal: What was agreed and what comes next
Cato Institute, August 2018 

Other related reports

The global order will outlast US leadership
Rand Corporation, August 2018

Portrait de Donald Trump: Président des Etats-Unis
Institut Montaigne, August 2018

Donald Trump n’est pas un protectionniste archaïque, c’est un mercantiliste pragmatique
Institut Thomas More, August 2018

Summing up the Trump summits
Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

The cost of Trump’s economic nationalism: A loss of foreign investment in the United States
Peterson Institute of International Economics, July 2018

Power in the international trading system: Trump administration risks destroying world trade order
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, July 2018

Ubu ou Machiavel?
Bruegel, July 2018

Reforming the WTO: With or without the US?
Institut Jacques Delors, July 2018

Trump is wrong: Guns alone don’t make a super power
Friends of Europe, July 20184

Read this briefing on ‘President Trump’s trade and international policies‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for victims of online hate speech.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Threats, abuse and intimidation posted on social media can go viral within seconds and wreak havoc on the victim’s life. Victims of online hate speech cannot remove the posts as easily as they spread. They depend on online platforms to help them. Over half of the citizens in the European Union (EU) follow debates on social media. According to a 2016 Eurobarometer survey, 75 % of people who follow or participate in online debates had witnessed or experienced abuse, threat or hate speech. Almost half of them said that this discouraged them from engaging in online discussions.

© #104086734 | Focus Pocus LTD/ Fotolia

Hate speech, both offline and online is a criminal offence under EU law. Responding to the growing problem, the European Commission set up dialogues with online platforms and is funding projects to counter online hate speech. In May 2016, the Commission and four major platforms (Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube) announced a Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online. Since then, more companies have joined, and they are increasingly meeting the goals of the Code of Conduct, including removing illegal hate speech within 24 hours. As a follow-up, in March 2018, the Commission recommended a set of operational measures to increase these efforts, before deciding whether to propose legislative measures. Vice-President for the Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip said: ‘Online platforms are becoming people’s main gateway to information, so they have a responsibility to provide a secure environment for their users.’

Further information

• Code of Conduct — Illegal online hate speech Questions and answers, 2016, http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=41844
• Tackling Illegal Content Online, European Commission Communication, 2017, https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2017/EN/COM-2017-555-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF
• A Europe that protects: Commission reinforces EU response to illegal content online, 2018, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-1169_en.htm

Written by Angelos Delivorias (1st edition),

© nito / Fotolia

As a part of the European regulatory responses to the financial and sovereign debt crises, the European Commission has proposed a regulation on sovereign bond-backed securities (SBBS), a new class of low-risk securities backed by a diversified pool of national government bonds. The proposal seeks to provide an enabling framework for a market-led development of SBBS, thus encouraging banks and investors to diversify their holdings of euro area bonds. The proposal is meant to address a weakness that appeared during the aforementioned crises, when banks’ high exposure to their sovereigns’ own debt, coupled with deteriorating creditworthiness of those sovereigns, led to balance sheet strains for banks. This in turn put pressure on government budgets, thus creating mutual contagion and financial instability. The procedure is currently at the initial stage in the European Parliament and the Council.

Versions

• August 2018: ‘Sovereign bond-backed securities: Risk diversification and reduction‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on sovereign bond-backed securities Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2018) 339
24.5.2018 Rapporteur: Jakob von Weizsäcker (S&D, Germany) 2018/0171 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Fulvio Martusciello (EPP, Italy)
Bernd Lucke (ECR, Germany)
Enrique Calvet Chambon (ALDE, Spain)
Martin Schirdewan (GUE/NGL, Germany)
Ernest Urtasun (Greens/EFA, Spain)
Marco Zanni (ENF, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report